W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2006

Re: [XBL] XBL 2.0 subtree or XML Fragment body

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:27:47 +0200
To: karl@w3.org
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <ne89i2d2fvclot299ljc5t7ld6kbpu83nl@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* karl@w3.org wrote:
>
>Hi,
>This is a QA Review comment for "XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0"
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/
>2006-06-19
>Last Call WD
>
>About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/#terminology

Your comments would be so much more readable if you could drop all this
redundant information, indent quotes, and wrap lines at ~76 characters.
For example, instead of all of the above, I would just write:

  In http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/#terminology

We know that this is a comment, what the title of the document is, when
it was published, what its status was at time of publication, and what
the URL of the document is. The same goes for quotes where you go as far
as citing the very second the document was published. Likewise, it would
be much better if you could first state the comment and then explain why
you are proposing the change. For example:

  In http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060907/#terminology the
  definition of the term "XBL subtree" should be replaced by
  "An XBL subtree is a fragment body in an XML document..." ...

That said, making this change would require to introduce a normative re-
ference to the XML Fragment Interchange CR, which no W3C Working Group
plans to take to Recommendation, which is rather unwise. Further, you
hid much of the complexity that comes with this change as you would have
to say

  An XBL subtree is a fragment body [XML Fragment Interchange]
  consisting of a single xbl element in the XBL namespace and
  its descendants, which is used to define bindings. XBL subtrees
  can stand alone in XBL documents, or can be included in non-XBL
  documents

which is much less readable and probably even wrong, given that the XFI
CR does not establish much terminology to further constrain "fragment
body" as would be needed here. So it would have been rather helpful if
you had included some information on why this change might improve the
specification.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 06:27:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:58 UTC